Hassam Nasir is a die-hard hardware enthusiast with years of experience as a tech editor and writer, focusing on detailed CPU comparisons and general hardware news. When he\u2019s not working, you\u2019ll find him bending tubes for his ever-evolving custom water-loop gaming rig or benchmarking the latest CPUs and GPUs just for fun. ","collapsible":{"enabled":true,"maxHeight":250,"readMoreText":"Read more","readLessText":"Read less"}}), "https://slice.vanilla.futurecdn.net/13-4-20/js/authorBio.js"); } else { console.error('%c FTE ','background: #9306F9; color: #ffffff','no lazy slice hydration function available'); } Hassam Nasir Social Links Navigation Contributing Writer Hassam Nasir is a die-hard hardware enthusiast with years of experience as a tech editor and writer, focusing on detailed CPU comparisons and general hardware news. When he’s not working, you’ll find him bending tubes for his ever-evolving custom water-loop gaming rig or benchmarking the latest CPUs and GPUs just for fun.
JamesJones44 I get the idea and is Intel "cheating" here, there is at least an argument to be made. However, if we are actively tweaking overall benchmark scores simply because CPU A supports a feature and CPU B doesn't then where do you draw the line? Do AMD CPUs that support AVX 512 now get tests specifically tweaked and tweaked numbers simple because Apple and Intel don't support 512 bit vectorization on a large number of their products? Reply
usertests JamesJones44 said: I get the idea and is Intel "cheating" here, there is at least an argument to be made. However, if we are actively tweaking overall benchmark scores simply because CPU A supports a feature and CPU B doesn't then where do you draw the line? Do AMD CPUs that support AVX 512 now get tests specifically tweaked and tweaked numbers simple because Apple and Intel don't support 512 bit vectorization on a large number of their products? When AMD added AVX-512 support, they weren't optimizing the performance of very many applications, but applications that benefit do exist and it's automatic. And some people have been worried about AVX-512 disproportionately dragging up combined scores, and may have made tweaks to deemphasize it, or called attention to these outliers. Intel iBOT is a whitelist of a small number of the hundreds of thousands of games/applications that can possibly run on your computer. Correct me if wrong, but I think it's currently 12 games and one non-game: Geekbench. Out of everything they could have picked, they picked a benchmark meant to give an objective measurement of the PC's performance (even if it isn't well-regarded. I use PassMark instead). In summary, Intel deserves flak. Benchmarketing is afoot. iBOT may never be applicable to even 1% of software. But if you do use some popular game/app that it speeds up, enjoy the free performance. Reply
ejolson usertests said: When AMD added AVX-512 support, they weren't optimizing the performance of very many applications, but applications that benefit do exist and it's automatic. And some people have been worried about AVX-512 disproportionately dragging up combined scores, and may have made tweaks to deemphasize it, or called attention to these outliers. My understanding is that if iBOT speeds an executable up by 30 percent this mostly indicates the developers did not expend the effort to properly vectorise that executable in the first place. Thus, iBOT means the work needed to vectorise each executable ahead of time can be skipped because vectorisation is done at runtime. I think you can go into the correct control panel and turn iBOT on for any program you want to see what happens. Reply
Gururu I neither play Geekbench nor read its benchmarks. How will this affect my game performance? Do games need to explicitly say iBOT certified, or will Intel driver updates indicate which games are optimized for it? Reply
hotaru251 JamesJones44 said: However, if we are actively tweaking overall benchmark scores simply because CPU A supports a feature and CPU B doesn't then where do you draw the line? less its just the feature and more its the feature that is only on 2 cpu and also is extremely nichely used in wild. both compound into something that isn't the average use case which is what their goal seems to be. Reply
JamesJones44 usertests said: In summary, Intel deserves flak. Benchmarketing is afoot. iBOT may never be applicable to even 1% of software. But if you do use some popular game/app that it speeds up, enjoy the free performance. My intention isn't to excuse Intel or argue iBOT in general. My argument was the justification from Geekbench, in which they claim this is needed due to the limited support nature of the feature. Which seems like the wrong justification because CPUs support various different enhancements product to product, vendor to vendor, generation to generation, etc. If Geekbench came out and said we are doing this because Intel targeted us with iBOT just to make Intel look better as justification I wouldn't have posted my comment as that would seem justified. Reply
JamesJones44 hotaru251 said: less its just the feature and more its the feature that is only on 2 cpu and also is extremely nichely used in wild. both compound into something that isn't the average use case which is what their goal seems to be. Assuming Intel never uses this again on any future products, I can see that argument Reply
Gururu Intel lists these as using iBOT: Assassin's Creed Mirage* Borderlands 3* Cyberpunk 2077* Far Cry 6* Final Fantasy XIV* Geekbench* 6.3+ (Proof of Concept) Hitman 3* Hogwarts Legacy* Marvel’s Spider-Man Remastered* Naraka: Bladepoint* Remnant 2* Shadow of the Tomb Raider* Tiny Tina's Wonderlands* Reply
thestryker usertests said: When AMD added AVX-512 support, they weren't optimizing the performance of very many applications, but applications that benefit do exist and it's automatic. And some people have been worried about AVX-512 disproportionately dragging up combined scores, and may have made tweaks to deemphasize it, or called attention to these outliers. While this is a real problem I think so long as it's noted it's fine. It definitely throws off big benchmark runs like Phoronix does which makes it annoying when they don't split them up in the conclusion area though. I'm ambivalent towards whether or not Geekbench considers IBOT results legit, but it very much needed to be noted either way. usertests said: In summary, Intel deserves flak. Benchmarketing is afoot. They deserve flak because they did a proof of concept of a non gaming benefit on a program everyone can test with and were very clear and open about what they were doing? :rolleyes: Maybe if this was a feature which was on by default upon installing required support software I'd agree with you, but since it requires intent very much nope. ejolson said: I think you can go into the correct control panel and turn iBOT on for any program you want to see what happens. Nope it's a whitelist situation in its current implementation. There is no ability to turn it on for specific software or universally on. Gururu said: Do games need to explicitly say iBOT certified, or will Intel driver updates indicate which games are optimized for it? Currently the way it functions is as part of APO. Until the release of ARL refresh it was a Windows Store application that you could install on any 12th Gen+ part as long as DTT was installed (on desktop this was almost never supplied by motherboard vendors until APO came out). APO basically just has a list of games and you can enable it or not, and now IBOT is another column in APO. APO when installed defaults to on for everything and IBOT is off for everything. For the current implementation it's a case by case whitelist from Intel. hotaru251 said: less its just the feature and more its the feature that is only on 2 cpu and also is extremely nichely used in wild. It supports every PTL SKU that doesn't have the big Graphics Tile. Robert Hallock also said in plain english (as opposed to marketing speak) it would be supported with every forthcoming Intel CPU. I also got the impression from one of the engineers working on it that they're trying to figure out a way to tie the functionality of APO and IBOT together which may make it simpler to validate. Reply
ravewulf The goal of benchmarking is to measure the performance of the hardware using stock software suites, meaning the software should be identical between platforms wherever possible. Intel BOT goes against that and is not a hardware feature. It's basically the same as when the Intel compiler generated optimized binaries for Intel CPUs and would run worse codepaths on non-Intel processors, just applied at runtime instead of at compile time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_C%2B%2B_Compiler#Support_for_non-Intel_processors Reply
Key considerations
- Investor positioning can change fast
- Volatility remains possible near catalysts
- Macro rates and liquidity can dominate flows
Reference reading
- https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/SPONSORED_LINK_URL
- https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/geekbench-6-7-adds-intel-bot-detection-to-spoof-out-unrealistic-cpu-scores-benchmark-runs-with-bot-enabled-will-be-marked-as-invalid#main
- https://www.tomshardware.com
- Efficiency at Scale: NVIDIA, Energy Leaders Accelerating Power‑Flexible AI Factories to Fortify the Grid
- Asus ROG Xbox Ally review: The cheapest Windows handheld gets points for showing up
- Indianapolis politician's home shot at 13 times over data center dispute — police and FBI investigating 'isolated, targeted incident' after city councilor backe
- be quiet! Pure Power 13 M 1200W supply review: Platinum-level efficiency, premium pricing
- Efficiency at Scale: NVIDIA, Energy Leaders Accelerating Power‑Flexible AI Factories to Fortify the Grid
Informational only. No financial advice. Do your own research.